Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, since as early as 1943, New York courts have regarded the phrase “inception of the loss” as a term of art referring to the accident insured against
• finding that the time limitation provision began when the insured’s claim accrued where the term “loss” was undefined and other uses of the term in the contract rendered it ambiguous
• noting that the policy in Myers, Smith & Granady used that phrase
• interpreting policy requiring insured to bring suit within two years “after the date of loss” as referring to “the date on which the cause of action accrues—that is, the date on which all the conditions precedent to bringing a claim have been satisfied”
• “Where lower state courts appear to have misconstrued or ignored binding precedent, [federal courts sitting in diversity] are obliged to follow the [decisions of the highest state court].”
• “[L]anguage such as ‘after the happening of the loss’ is considered to be ‘lacking in precision’ such that the limitations ‘period is computed not from the time of the occurrence of the physical loss . . . but from the time that liability accrues.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).